Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

A village board is not bound absent its adoption of a resolution providing for the benefit claimed to have agreed upon orally

A village board is not bound absent its adoption of a resolution providing for the benefit claimed to have agreed upon orally
Garrigan v Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 59 AD3d 662

In April 1957, Garrigan began employment as a Village of Malverne police officer. The collective bargaining agreement between the Village and the PBA provided benefits including, upon termination from employment, payment for unused vacation, sick, and terminal leave. In 1973 the Village appointed Garrigan as its Chief of Police. Although Garrigan remained a member of the PBA member during his tenure as Chief of Police, the PBA contract specifically excluded him, as Chief of Police, from coverage under the contract.

Garrigan alleged that prior to his appointment as Chief of Police, he and the then-Village Mayor orally agreed that the terms of his employment as Chief of Police would mirror the terms set forth in the PBA contract. However, such an alleged agreement was never reduced to writing, and the Village Board never adopted a resolution conforming to the alleged oral agreement.

Upon his applying for retirement, Garrigan requesting payment from the Village for 51¾ days of unused vacation, 874.5 days of unused sick leave, and 223.5 days of terminal leave. Retiring effective November 27, 2001, Garrigan initiated a lawsuit after the Village failed to honor his request for payment for the unused vacation, sick, and terminal leave.*

Ultimately the matter went to trial and the jury decided that Garrigan was entitled to recover for unused vacation, sick, and terminal leave pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-m and for unused vacation, sick, and terminal leave that accrued to him pursuant to a contract between the Police Benevolent Association.

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court erred in allowing Garrigan to recover for unused vacation, sick, and terminal leave pursuant to GML §207-m.

In the words of the Appellate Division, ?Even accepting the jury's determination that such oral contract existed, such contract was insufficient to support [Garrigan?s] claims since, absent a resolution from the Village Board reducing the oral contract to writing, the Village cannot be bound.?

* Prior to issuing this decision, the Appellate Division considered various motions [see Garrigan v Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 12 AD3d 400 [Garrigan 1] and Garrigan v Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 12 AD3d 400 [Garrigan 2].

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 22, 2010 (boomark / email).